Surgical strategies for radical resections in subaxial cervical spine tumors

颈椎下段肿瘤根治性切除的手术策略

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Radical resection of subaxial cervical spine tumors is challenging. This study evaluates outcomes following these extensive procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 24 patients (mean age 38.8 yrs) treated (2002-2022) for subaxial cervical tumors (8 benign, 10 primary malignant, 6 metastatic). Procedures included total en bloc spondylectomy (TES, n = 9), total piecemeal spondylectomy (TPS, n = 6), and en bloc tumor resection (ETR, n = 9). Outcomes assessed included radiographic fusion, functional status (Visual Analog Scale [VAS]/Neck Disability Index [NDI]), complications, local recurrence, and survival. Paired t-tests and Kaplan-Meier/log-rank tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 62 months. Benign tumor patients (ETR) experienced no recurrences or major complications and showed significant VAS/NDI improvement (p < 0.05). Primary malignant tumor patients (TES/TPS/ETR) had no local recurrence but suffered higher mortality (6/10 deaths; 4 disease-related) and complications (vertebral artery injury, cerebrospinal fluid leak, nerve injury), along with significant VAS/NDI improvement (p < 0.05). Metastatic tumor patients (TES/TPS) had no local recurrence or intraoperative complications; 50 % of these patients died from systemic disease. Significant VAS/NDI improvement was also achieved (p < 0.05). Radiographic fusion was confirmed in all the patients where bone grafts were applied (n = 21). Overall survival differed significantly by tumor type (p = 0.0395), with a significant trend across groups (p = 0.0340). CONCLUSION: Radical resection for selected subaxial cervical tumors achieved high fusion rates, significant functional improvement, and excellent local tumor control. However, inherent risks of severe complications exist, particularly with malignant tumors. Survival varied significantly by histology. Current data preclude definitive conclusions on the comparative oncological efficacy of en bloc versus piecemeal techniques.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。